click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Theological Swinging, the New Calvinism, and Emerging Christianity
by C Michael PattonNovember 20th, 2011
119 Comments
Last week I met with an old friend of mine who I had heard was a “swinger.” For those of you who don’t know, swinging is when both partners in a committed relationship agree to have a sexually open relationship. This guy was married and came in to talk to me about – you guessed it – marital problems. The idea in “swinging” is that things never become mundane. Sexual monogamy, according to swingers, is nothing more than confining yourself to sexual boredom. Being with the same partner becomes cliché and uneventful. Swinging keeps things fresh and novel at all times so the high produced by provocation is always maintained.
As problematic and destructive as marital swinging is, that is not what I am writing about. I want to talk about what I call theological swinging. This is, in my opinion, one of the greatest problems in theology today (and probably of any day). Let me explain.
Before going to seminary, I was given a set of books by my pastor. At the time he was, to me, the smartest person living on planet Earth. I salivated to get a peek of his notes each week. I wanted to record everything he said. And just to get to see his library – the source of the very sun! – was just about too much excitement for me to handle. That is why I was speechless the day he gave me two books, one blue and one red. I knew these were precious books to him due to the amount of notes and stickies that covered the dog-eared pages. What were they? Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Volumes 1 and 2 by Josh McDowell. Upon reception of these books I read them cover to cover. The wisdom and knowledge that filled these pages was almost too much excitement for this 20-year-old apologist wannabe to take. It was so provocative to me. The provocation came, not from learning the Gospel for the first time, but from seeing for the first time, with my own eyes, an attempt to defend Christianity. “Are you kidding me?” were the words I said each time I hit a new topic. This guy, Josh McDowell, must be a giant of the faith, demanding respect from everyone. He was my new hero.
It was not until I hit seminary that I found out the “truth:” You see, at seminary, among all the students “in the know,” I came to find out very quickly that these kinds of works are frowned upon. I came to find out that McDowell’s apologetics were called “pop” apologetics. In essence, pop apologetics is a cliché defense of the faith performed by cliché apologists. Translation: it was naive. It was not kosher. If and when I quoted someone like McDowell in a conversation with fellow students, there would be some snickering. The idea conveyed was that there were certain works, written by certain authors, that were “little league” and not respectable. Whether is was Lewis Sperry Chafer, Josh McDowell, Wayne Grudem, or R.C. Sproul (all of whom were my self-proclaimed mentors until that point), they were, at best, milk from the breast of my mother; at worst, naive teachers who simply parroted the simple and sheltered faith of evangelicalism. If you wanted to run with the “big boys” you had to read yourself some Barth, Multmonn, Hauerwas, or one of the liberation theologians such as Boff or Gutierrez. Why? Because, quite frankly, they did not fit the “stupid” evangelical mold. These were the “cool” people to read. They were the trump cards that, when played, left other students feeling inadequate and inferior. I thought I could read Dwight Pentecost’s Things to Come and be prepared for any discussion on eschatology. Who knew that quoting Theology of Hope by Jürgen Moltmann at Dallas Theological Seminary would be more prestigious than Pentecost? Who knew that saying that you had been reading A Theology of Liberation would score you more points than reading Basic Theology by Charles Ryrie? Who knew that the greatest danger for any Christian leader was to be labeled cliché?
Let me try to illustrate this another way before I get back to the swinger thing: I remember in fourth grade, there was a girl who held the near-unanimous vote for being the prettiest gal in school. Everyone was in love with her. Everyone wanted to sit by her at lunch or go across the monkey bars with her at recess. If you gained either of these honors you were, by extension, the most popular guy in school. She held that much power. However, things changed. By the time our same group of friends entered high school, she was no longer held in such high esteem. In fact, thinking she was pretty was somewhat passé. Suddenly, it was the random loner gal (who everyone previously thought was weird). Suddenly it was the one who hung around with the skinheads and listened to Violent Femmes who everyone liked. On paper, she was not as pretty as our former love, but she was exotic. She was outside the box. If she were to lose her exotic “off-limits” appeal by joining our crowd (which some did), she was no longer the one. The primary qualification for appeal became novelty. Fresh appeal that comes from being obscure and mysterious went further than the meat and potatoes of good looks and charm.
Theology is a lot like this. If it is exotic, out of the norm, and less known, it does not matter how “pretty” it really is, it is what is “cool.” You see, in theology, for many people “in the know,” once something becomes mainstream, it is disqualified. Once it becomes too popular or normal, it is naive. Once everyone thinks it is correct, it is no longer qualified to be anything but a foil for the correct. We become theological swingers whose end is not to find the truth, but simply to swing.
For theological swingers, referencing the unknown, obscure, rejected, Violent Femmes-loving theologian becomes a heavy-handed power play. It has its power because most people don’t know how to respond. A statement like, “I used to be premillenial like you until I read Moltmann” leaves people speechless. They don’t know who Moltmann is, much less read him, so they are left feeling inadequate to stay in the conversation. Mystery, intrigue, and novelty become placeholders for truth. Pastoral ideals of theological stability are replaced with looking smarter than the next person. Truth is not the goal, but rather self-image. And theological swingers just don’t want to be bored, liking the same gal that everyone else likes.
I have been a theological swinger. In fact, I am only now beginning to graduate from this way of thinking. I am only now beginning to see that this method is itself naive. For a time, I would not read anyone who fit the mold of my conservative evangelical theological culture. I felt that was my duty. I loved to quote those who were less known and exotic. I still have the tendency to belittle (at least in the back of my mind) people who reference and quote theologians, biblical exegetes, and philosophers who are too popular within the evangelical sub-culture. I am ashamed to say that McDowell, who inspired me so much before, became to me an embarrassing distant relative who only discredits my “scholarship” and reputation with others whose respect has fueled my swinging habit.
However, I am recovering. The first thing I have realized lately is that one person’s cliché is the next person’s provocation. Dealing with people who come out of other traditions has taught me this. Those whose culture is accustomed to learning from liberal theologians find conservatives provocative. Those who are accustomed to Eastern Orthodoxy find evangelical writings out of the box. Those who are fundamentalists rebel and swing with those who take a more liberal stand.
Theologies and theologians come and go. Provocation is a great thing, but if we are committed to provocation and swinging more than truth, the journey will be unending and ungodly. We will never be satisfied, as our compass will be broken. Divorce, adultery, and eternal convictionless theological swinging is all we can expect. Remember, there was a time when all the “pop” theologies and apologetics that you might look down upon now were not mainstream. They were the mysterious, obscure ideas. They were the novelties. However, their value does not come in their newness, but in their substance.
I do want to say that all of those thinkers I referenced before have been very much worth my time and attention. With popular theologians or the less popular ones, we all need to broaden our horizons. And we should read and learn outside the norm of our culture. We don’t need to accept mainstream because it is mainstream and we don’t need to reject it because of this either. The exotic, novel, and provocative are worth our attention so long as truth, not novelty, is our goal. However, sometimes there is a reason why the gal who hangs out with the skinhead is obscure and unknown . . . and it is not because she is prettier than the other!
I write this for myself. These are confessions of a theological swinger. However, I know so many theologians and young “emerging” thinkers out there today who are completely unstable, swinging away and trying to get everyone else to swing with them. Swinging is not theologically “cool,” much less does it evidence any intelligence. It has no profundity and is the furthest thing from a pastoral approach to stabilizing people’s faith. Once we realize that one person’s cliché is the next person’s provocation, we will disengage in this endless search for something new. “Novel” is not synonymous with “profound.” Realize this: that which is new today will be passé tomorrow. All one has to do is look into much of the Emerging movement and see this swinging mentality displayed, as authors who were thought to be the most profound ten years ago are now thought of as simple.
And just as a sidenote (to get me into a bit of trouble), I often wonder if this mentality is more to blame for the resurgence of all the young people who are Calvinist charismatics than is actual theological conviction. It just seems like it is the “cool” thing to be these days in evangelicalism: young, restless, reformed, and charismatic – and to read Jonathan Edwards! Certainly I have nothing against Calvinism or Edwards (though, as you know, I have some issues with the charismatic movement), but I don’t know if celebration is necessarily in order. I have a hunch that many will switch dance partners once this fad goes out of style.
And, to put this into perspective: Theological swinging is nothing new itself! There were a bunch of these boys in Athens.
Acts 17:21
“Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.”
Similar Posts:
- Are We Theological Bots?
- “Good Question. I Will Find the Answer and Get Back to You” . . . And Other Stupid Statements
- Top Fifteen Must Have Books on Apologetics
- “True for You, But Not for Me” 2.0: The Newly-Released Revised, Expanded Edition
- Hi, I am Paul Copan
Loading ...
119 Comments
Like or Dislike:
2
Michael, you wrote that, “one person’s cliché is the next person’s provocation.” I noticed that this morning in church. I’m an American living in Taiwan, and we had another American give the sermon. He included the line, “If Jesus isn’t Lord of all, He isn’t Lord at all.” To me, this was just a cliche. But my Taiwanese friends loved it and thought it was really deep.
Like or Dislike:
3
“I used to be premillenial like you then I read the Bible.” LOL I couldn’t resist. As a young non-charismatic reformed fella, I quite agree with what you have to say. I have found this to be my experience through my college years. I latched on to emerging ideology in my naivety. Looking back, it was not out of conviction, but novelty. When tested as a conviction, though it did not hold water. Now I have settled into a reformed point of view, not because its novel, but because of my conviction that it best represents and reconciles the Word of God. Even when reformed thought as an ideology was novel 500 years ago, it didn’t set Europe on fire for novelty’s sake, but because of the reformers’conviction that it was the pure, unadulterated Word of God.
Like or Dislike:
3
I find that when people confine themselves to a narrow range of books and authors, they seem to commit what I call “intellectual incest”. Their thinking and discussion becomes very limited, and they become difficult to deal with. A comment James White made rang true with me. He went to Fuller, which is apparently a liberal seminary. He had to read and interact with the liberal ideas and authors. He commented that the conservatives will often read the liberals, but the liberals won’t read the conservatives. This limits their ability.
I’ve often found you lose something by limiting yourself. I used to be afraid of Rick Warren. Most of the blogs I read call him a heretic. Then I noticed that every time I read an interview with him, everything he says is pretty much right. I started listening to his sermon podcast every week, and even read PDL.
I’m not sure why we have a tendency to elevate our ecclisiastical leadership, as if by being a pastor or professor at a seminary somehow makes a man holier. We’ve all seen pastors fall from grace. They’re just like us. Just because a man is a pastor or wrote a book doesn’t make him any smarter or beloved by God than I am.
I’m sure you’ve already thought this through. When somebody dismisses McDowell as a “pop apologist”, that doesn’t say anything as to the merits of his arguments. It’s a dismissal by label. It’s a logical fallacy.
Like or Dislike:
0
I have found church history, and the influence of old theology on the landscape to be preferable to the novel of the week. My concern lies in the congregations interaction with both within and outside of the Body of Christ. I feel, If modern philosophical context allows the breaking down of fundamental exclusiveness and judgment, it cam be a rewarding movement. That is as long as important doctrines are maintained and the love of Jesus is the sole purpose for its continuance. I have gleaned some large nuggets from modern trends, but suggest a constant attitude of discernment. Good post.
Like or Dislike:
1
“telling and hearing some new thing”
That is where I am guilty.
But, I have found that as long it is “a new thing” that is derived from Bible exposition and exegesis the “new thing” is worthy of study.
I don’t think we should seek the “new thing”for novelty’s sake or to be in vogue or to sneer with contempt on the theological outsiders.
I think we SHOULD seek the “new thing” theologically to test our positions, evaluate our theological mindset and have the new wine skins of other people’s perspective to shake off our preconceptions and blind spots.
A few examples are:
Baptist brider theology for those who are universal church
only
Mid acts theology for those who focus on the Gospels and what Christ said above all else
Kingdom exclusionists for those who are amillennial
Open Theism for those who are supralapsarian, double predestinarianists, and hold to God ordaining all sin including the fall and Coach Sandusky sodomizing children.
The list goes on
Like or Dislike:
2
I agree. But what I have also found out is that the list goes on infinitely! In other words, there is no end to those who will belittle your understanding because you have not read this or that authors take. It just depends on which group you are running with. One person’s exotic option is the next persons boring cliche tradition.
Like or Dislike:
0
Awesome post Michael. Just excellent.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6
I have found one good antidote to following the latest pop theology is to follow C. S. Lewis’ advice and read old books, not just the ones that happen to be trendy, but in a broad enough base to give you perspective on the newest trend. It we are seeking truth each new thing needs to be evaluated by the larger base of Christian truth.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
Pffff. CS Lewis? Too mainstream.
Like or Dislike:
1
I was just about to give you mega-kudos for one of the most bestest-est things you’ve ever written.
Then came your penultimate paragraph.
Nice luggage set. But it is out of place here.
Like or Dislike:
0
Over the years, there have been those on this site and elsewhere ( do not include myself here) who attempted to call you back – lovingly or otherwise – to the center. They were not always treated with the respect and dignity their convictions deserved.
For whatever reasons, such people were and are further down the path that you now have discovered “on your own.” A note of thanks to them might be in order.
Like or Dislike:
0
(Having trouble with the editor.)
The above should read, “(I do not include myself here)”
Like or Dislike:
1
CMP,
I was convinced by Sam’s arguments.
I suppose I didn’t react to the last paragraph as Marv, but it is because of your blog Michael that I am a Calvinist Charismatic now.
Like or Dislike:
0
That’s the thing about swinging…..when the limb breaks you are no longer swinging but falling which has a rather abrupt ending. Thanks CMP, I love theology and the open minded thinking and have found it very maturing for my christian walk but have found at the end of the day my feet usually planted in what some may call, not very firm soil. It is not that I haven’t established a conviction for myself but rather that I see others convictions with less hostile eyes. In the end I think that is a good thing. I will leave the judging to God.
Like or Dislike:
0
FWIW, Michael and Aaron, I’m not majorly bothered by “that” paragraph. Just rolling the ol’ eyes, is all…
Anyway, 97-99% really good post is the takehome message.
I agree with Aaron too that Sam’s participation in the discussion has been stellar. Since it’s all the rage… why not jump on the bandwagon too, Michael? LOL.
Like or Dislike:
3
Marv, I am but a hair’s breadth away! I actually had an experience that I am wrestling with how to handle…it has a lot of bearing for me personally on the charismatic issue. To make a long story short, I had a charismatic come into the Credo House (a great guy that I love) who asked to pray for my back and the pain went away right then and there. In five years I have not felt so good!
Like or Dislike:
2
Hmm. Parchment & Pen may very well be on it’s way to being too cliché. Maybe it’s just a matter of time!?
Like or Dislike:
1
Parchment and Pen is not a theology!
Like or Dislike:
1
This kind of thing happens among some Christian philosophers as well. It isn’t popular to reference Josh McDowell (for example) on an issue. This doesn’t make sense to me. If some claim is true or some argument is sound, what does it matter that it came from McDowell or Zacharias or Koukl or Geisler rather than van Inwagen or Plantinga or Alston or Swinburne?
Like or Dislike:
2
Dan, great to see you at ETS.
Theological swinging may be bad, but take it from me, it’s not as bad as ecclesiastical promiscuity. (Yes, I coined that term, and originally used it here: http://romereturn.blogspot.com/2010/03/chris-castaldo-interview-in-books-and.html )
Like or Dislike:
1
Michael,
A very good post. Truth is not found by following polls or fads. The wisdom of God is wiser than the foolishness of men. There is nothing new under the sun. Vanity is what drives us to embrace the new and provocative rather than summit to the tried and true.
Like or Dislike:
0
Oops! I thought it was Dan Wallace who wrote this. It was Michael. Sorry, Mike. Still nice work!
Frank
Like or Dislike:
2
As someone who is partaking in a conservative, evangelical theological education, I somewhat disagree with what you are saying.
The Christian tradition has produced so much depth, but more than that, so much girth over the centuries. As a student of Church history, I believe it is very important to learn about the history of an idea before opining on the idea. To dive into the depths of the Christian tradition truly is a joy. And the goal is not novelty; (This is where I agree— if your goal is theological novelty, you are wrong) the goal is unity.
As Christians, we worship the God of the living, and therefore we worship with the saints who came before us. This means that it is our obligation to get to know them. To learn how they lived, to learn what they believed, and to learn how they worshiped.
Like or Dislike:
0
Lord knows that I am a fan of history. I think that studying history is, by definition, a rejection of novelty and swinging!
Like or Dislike:
1
In other works, I think you missed the point.
Like or Dislike:
0
You are probably right
I just relate too well to looking for new theological ideas and ideas that do “not fit the stupid evangelical mold” from the history books is all.
Like or Dislike:
2
Michael,
Regarding your back: I am slightly surprised that your position rests so much on experience. I suppose I really do want to encourage you that God really has been working throughout the centuries with miracles, as Grudem defines “a less common way of God working in the world that brings wonder and awe and bears witness to himself.
Let me share what God has done in my life. Before reading your “Why I am/not Charismatic series”, I held that Christ did all his miracles by the power of the Spirit and that ideally we the same by relying on the Spirit as he did: yet I was a cessationist for the same reason you are. I said God simply isn’t working. I also denied other’s experiences. I even saw God heal a friend yet remained a cessationist. So my experiences were still interpreted by my theology.
It was really when Sam said “Paul says seek the gifts. If you aren’t seeking the gifts, you are in sin because you are disobeying a command.”– Then I started seeking them. … actually, that day: I had been on the verge of atheism for a while (I had fallen into atheism for one month [it was the above mentioned healing of a friend that brought me out of atheism] and then I wanted to be an atheist [but couldn't] for another 5 months) and that night, I was filled with the Spirit and wanted nothing to do but pray for the next half hour (I hadn’t prayed in months). God at that time restored my desire for him and for his word. And that love and desire for God still remains.
Like or Dislike:
0
Aaron, no matter what position I take your story is an amazing and wonderful read. Praise God!!
I am surprised that my position is so rooted in experience as well. But my faith in God is not. It is rooted in the resurrection. I have way too much hard stuff in my life right now to base my faith in God in his perceived movements in the favor of my family. If I did, I would be an atheist!
Thanks for sharing brother. I pray that He continues to strengthen you!
Like or Dislike:
0
Thank you Michael.
God is wonderful. One day I’ll need to tell you about how I became a Christian in the first place: I love telling my story for his glory. His grace is soooo great!
What a Father!
May your back stay well. May he guide both of us as we seek to know him more.
Your brother, Aaron
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] world today. The popular thing to partake of is that of what Michael Patton recently identified as theological swinging. It’s quite fashionable, in vogue today to embrace a somewhat off-the-wall theological [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks for a great post.
Speaking of it not being a new thing, I came across this verse the other day that seemed to capture the current situation in the world:
” [3] For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, [4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
(2 Timothy 4:3-4 ESV)”
Additionally, I am someone who was brought up in an evangelical home that was open to the charismatic, then moved into more charismatic churches as I got older. I am now rediscovering the joys of reformed theology – I find it actually echoes much of what I already believed, and isn’t incompatible with my charismatic leanings. Listening to your recent podcasts has been a great joy (although at times I want to leap into the conversation!).
I truly believe that churches who manage to wrestle with this charismatic reformed “crossover” will have a huge impact in the current culture.
Like or Dislike:
1
Is the desire to be novel really just a desire to know what others don’t?
What I notice in your examples is theological peer pressure. As with any peer pressure it exploits the desire to be cool. You also refer to “running with the big boys,” another reference to how we think of others, how they think of us and how we think of ourselves. The snickering by others and use of terms like prestigious all point to that underlying fact.
Perhaps in dropping Moltmann’s name there’s a subtle (or not so subtle) delight in feeling superior while making others feel inadequate. IOW, there’s a sense of competition with more than a dash of pride thrown in when one steps a tad higher than someone else on the hill of knowledge. How did Paul put it…”puffed up?” The man had a way with words. He also offered a solution to the problem: “…in humility consider others better than yourselves.”
The bottom line is that all too often we allow our sense of self-worth to be determined by what others think of us instead of basing it on our identity in Christ. As Donald Miller says in “Searching for God Knows What,” we seem to be wired in such a way that we listen to others to discover who we are. The problem is we listen to those around us instead of listening to God.
Like or Dislike:
0
There is definitely some fadism and superiority in almost any theological circle, which is a little bizarre to me. Like really people the fact that we like theology in the first place means we are NERDS. But I think it’s just a case of people measuring themselves by themselves. That kind of thing never ends up well. I admit to having an aversion to anything that is the current fad, but do try to deal with the arguments rather than hype.
Also, as an OGRE (old grumpy reformed and evangelical–okay I added evangelical to make it work) I’d agree that there are a lot of people who, being tossed by every wind of doctrine, do end up over here for a time. But then we’re mean to them so they go away. Only the true of purpose survive the OGRE gauntlet and become one of us.
Like or Dislike:
1
Lets put some of this wisdom down to natural rather than revealed. For years the same debate has happened in the art world – that old “Spectator” art critic Giles Auty has been banging the drum against the modernist and post modernist movements
“The seminal lie of radicalism is that all change is automatically for the better, even though much of our experience of life teaches us otherwise.” – Giles Auty, Postmodernism’s Assault on Western Culture.
“In visual art, the rhetoric of radicalism holds total sway and we have been persuaded somehow to make novelty almost the sole effective index of quality.” – ibid
you are not alone
Like or Dislike:
0
“The primary qualification for appeal became novelty. [...] Mystery, intrigue, and novelty become placeholders for truth. [...] The exotic, novel, and provocative are worth our attention so long as truth is our goal, not novelty.”
I know I’m late to the game, so to speak, but wow! Great job on this article… or, perhaps, confession, as you admittedly call it. I gotta pass this along.
Like or Dislike:
0
Being tossed about by every wind of doctrine, this is what you are discussing, and it has nothing to do with pastoral care.
My own remedie for this is that I willfully read far and wide, and theologians of variouse traditions. You have to, it’s your job as a pastor, you need to know where others are coming from. But I also read the classics of my tradition, return to them often. Reread Sasse and Giertz, who have been my favorits since before I went to college. But then I’m a conservative Lutheran, which epitomizes exotic, we confound everyone. And you should read the authors I just mentioned. I imagine for you it would be the ultimate swinging sensation, and few if any of your friends would know what your talking about.
Like or Dislike:
1
I too was somewhat stunned and shunned for my dislike of the “new” views in both my undergraduate and graduate program – major, Christian Studies. However, I’ll take that and stick to what I believe to be the truth found in the Book. I think the problem with seminaries and college programs is that rather than making sure all are grounded in the Bible it seems ‘cool’ to study new things. All students should have to take a worldview class before preceding further, this way, maybe, more would understand their personal beliefs before delving into the waters of theology. Great job on the post!
Like or Dislike:
1
You’re talking about the sin of vanity, and I want to warn you NOT to associate particular works with vanity. Just because some bozo pontificates “I used to think that until I read Barth” in order to establish his clear superiority, does not mean Barth does not have the correct idea about that subject.
Moreover, it is entirely possible to say those very same words and mean them humbly and sincerely. Of course, you can usually tell if that’s the case, when, for example, the speaker follows the comment with the explanation of exactly what it was in Barth that changed his mind, and then stops and allows you to respond.
Short version, don’t be a reverse swinger, either. That is, don’t stubbornly stick to Josh McDowell just because the snobs at seminary won’t. He really is just a bit shallow. I’m just sayin’…
Like or Dislike:
1
As John MacArthur has well taught, the very nature of truth is under attack today. The bottom line is the exegetical exposition of Scripture. When must be like the Bereans and check what we’re told by Scripture. Attach to a systematic theology and we become quickly at risk for substituting men’s opinions & traditions for the Word of God. For the past 25 years my observation has been that the problem is too often is not that professing believers don’t know their Bible; it’s that they don’t know that they don’t know their Bible.
Like or Dislike:
0
Interesting post certainly! If we confess it, we have all somewhat been theological swingers I suppose, but thank God I am dancing with classic historical Anglicanism. Which has always been “catholic” and “reformed”. And since being an Irish born Brit., I can really appreciate the best in the history of Anglicanism. And here btw we have a C.S. Lewis! But let me plug Julie Canlis’s book: Calvin’s Ladder, A Spiritual Theology Of Ascent and Ascension! Just a sweet read! I really like some of the new Calvin work and material.
Finally, it needs to be said, that we have a new good historical apologist in Michael Licona, his book: The Resurrection of Jesus, etc. A grand piece! I could go on, and express my love also for certain theological places of the EO or Orthodoxy. I wish we could see more of our common ground on Christology and the Trinity! In the end, Biblical Evangelicalism is much more than we have measured it!
PAX
Like or Dislike:
0
Good post Michael.
This is probably a facet of “Love Wins” appeal.
Like or Dislike:
0
Enjoyed your post Michael. Thank you for your confessions of swinging in theological circles. (By the way, in ‘circles’ is often what happens in swinging.)
I was/am middle aged, not restless, but still Reformed; having come from an Arminian introduction to the Lord with the Pentecostal twist. Somehow I had believed that salvation could be lost, but that ‘I’ never would; & not by my own doing, but God’s. The power of the Truth of God’s Word wrestled me into full submission to what I second form of salvation, (I don’t like to use labels personally, I do for the sake of those who would want to describe me, reluctantly, though), from Arminian to Reformed; without a teacher directly influencing me; at least that’s how I think/remember it being. (I take no credit at all for this.)
So, I suppose you could say that there was a ‘swing’ of sorts that ocurred in my walk with Jesus, but not one of popularity; at least not in the church nor with the folks who were, (and still are), my friends in the faith. It was not cool, but objectionable to many of them, but they’ve kept a real good eye on me, not to let me become too ‘liberated’ or even a ‘backslider’. Nevertheless, the storm has been weathered and God’s testimony still stands, and that is what holds me up. My Sovereign!
My next awkwardness was as still being a ‘Pentecostal’ in a cessationist ‘circle’. (Would you call me the ‘exotic’ in this scenario?) I didn’t yet know of John Piper, not very much of Edwards, nothing of Mahaney, Sovereign Grace or Grudem. This was all back in the 90′s & while on one hand I was fighting, (earnestly contending), against the popular ‘pentecostal excesses’ & charismaniacs; on the other I was challenging my own penetcostal framework, which I thought, (knew), fit my best understanding of Scripture. (I am not a ‘second blessing’ type of pentecostal, either.) This sort of made me ‘unfit’ for either ‘circle’ of my beloved brethren in Christ. Your description of ‘exotic’ really fits what I was going through at that time; though I was never a wierdo or an oddball any more than all Christians are, (according to the world), for our believing in Christ.
Today, I am; not young, not restless, not emergent, (yecch), (Maybe comment another time.), not charismagic; but certainly Reformed, Pentecostal, and energetically resting in the finished work of Christ. And I’ve read Piper and enjoyed his books, Edwards and struggled at times to understand his depth, & listened to Mahaney a few times; but I never knew that it was the ‘popular’ thing to do. (I used to be a hippie, so I know what being popular by doing the unpopular is all about; what purposelessness that is.)
Now that I’ve read your post, written these short notes, & had time to honestly think about them; I can honestly say that God has kept me from being a theological swinger; even though He’s brought me through some changes.
Thank you again, Michael for providing refreshment in causing me to think on these things.
David
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, Karl Barth is certainly not infallible, but he is certainly like a modern Church Father! By all means read Barth!
Like or Dislike:
0
So in brief the above is a rant, not against apologetics, but against those who hang their hat on the latest and greatest ‘fad’––those who are not making a biblical argument (sounds a little like Talkative from Pilgrims Progress) so much as they are puffing themselves up and dropping names. (Turns out that many of us professing Christians are not so unlike the world after all.) A good way to bypass all of the dross is to focus only on the question, not who said what. “Oh, MacArthur said that? Well, then it must be true!” It is very liberating to simply admit that you don’t understand. “Why is that?” is one of my favorite questions. Often if we ask others to explain themselves to us, well, personal experience has shown me that their knowledge ends with quotation marks––they can’t explain it themselves. It is much easier to cut to the chase and honestly ask, Is this a valid question? What is the Biblical argument? Nothing wrong with quoting others, but can we sustain the argument? If someone prefers to merely quote the writings of others while leaving the Bible out––I prefer not to cast pearls before swine. Theological swingers? Might I suggest that we should “from such, turn away.”? II Timothy 3:5
I am easily exhausted by unnecessary theological discussions. I prefer to discuss ‘just the facts’ or we’ll be here till Friday and end up nowhere.
Somehow, Romans 14:5 comes to mind…
Wasn’t it Ravi Zacharias, one of the great apologists of our day, who upon asking a fellow student his reason for being in seminary received the answer, “Because there’s a lot of money in the God racket.”? Might this explain some of the ‘swinging’ that is going on?
We can build our arguments and ask our questions, but shouldn’t we be starting AND ending with the Word of God? Not to start a rant of my own, but this is one of my biggest issues with Catholicism. The use of the Word in regards to any of their teachings is considerably hard to come by. Anytime this occurs, is it not a red flag for any seeker? For another example we can ‘swing’ on over to Rob Bell’s camp…
“What is truth?” are the words of Pilate during the trial of Jesus. What we don’t know is how he asked this question. Was it out of frustration? Was it sincere? Was he mocking? Regardless, how WE ask the question is what matters, and if the truth is all that really matters to us, asking this question is liberating; while how hard we pursue the answers reveals our own hearts to us. Ps 42:11
I love apologetics! I love having a well reasoned answer for why I believe! Our God is not a God of confusion! There is no reason to be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine” when we begin and end with the Word of God!
Interesting post Michael. Given today’s theological climate and the state of ‘Christianity’, as well as the cacophony of voices young people hear, is there any wonder why our young people don’t believe in truth anymore?
Like or Dislike:
0
This was an interesting post, and most of the commenters are quite articulate as well. For me, the question is not so much whether or not somebody is trendy, or whether anybody else will be impressed. If it is hipness we are seeking, name-checking theologians, any theologians, ain’t gonna cut it. Sure, there are different circles of people and fashions differ from crowd to crowd, but still…
Ultimately, the best theologians endure the merciless test of time. We still read Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, Calvin and Luther. In terms of 20th century theologians, Karl Barth and Karl Rahner will both endure, along with a handful of others. Usually there are clear reasons why some theologians last while others do not, and it doesn’t really have a lot to do with fashion, although the historical and cultural milieu in which a writer works may have a lot to do with whether or not their work survives. The theological tradition is, to me, very important. It is so rich. It is like a river that flows through time and space, the source of which is, of course, Jesus Himself. And the Bible itself, root of all theology, is so powerful that all subsequent theology can be seen as merely a set of footnotes. The people are grass; theology is, as St. Thomas famously concluded, straw. The Word of the Lord endures forever.
Again, thank you for a good, thoughtful piece.
Like or Dislike:
0
Truth swings like a pendulum. Truth is complex. Truth hides and giggles and winks. Truth escapes the grasp. I read McDowell when I was in Junior High School and really loved him. It felt comfortable to realize that someone had spend hundreds of hours really studying the resurrection and had come to the conclusion that it must really have happened. Most of the problems were solved. And he plugged the holes for me in the Old Testament by his critique of the source criticism in the Pentateuch. I read C. S. Lewis in university and a few other things. And Tolkien. What these and other scholars raised for me were questions I had never thought to ask. I remember in my denomination we didn’t like the word “theology” because it wasn’t in the Bible. People used to say that getting a theological education could only lead to apostasy. One of my teachers spoke (with some irony) to the issue and said, “You are all correct. All this focus on education for pastors is leading us to hell in a hand basket. We should cut it off at kindergarten, before it gets out of hand.” Everyone who is anyone knows that the real church didn’t even get started until Calvin (or ________), who had/found/restored the real witness of the Spirit (or enlightenment or interpretation or Gospel), right? The problem with this idea (that truth is stationary) is that truth moves on, at the speed of light and swings on. It swung from Leo Magnus to Hildebrand to Luther to Simons to Ware to Balthazar and back again. When you come back to McDowell after reading a few more things (and not many, really) it seems like there are other questions. Truth isn’t stationery with a company watermark. And that some of the answers you had were just plain wrong. Places where truth is or has been or will be but your mind, your heart has not been. And just when you trap it, nail it down, systematize it and domesticate it … well, it seems to have moved on and what you are left with is something more or less than truth. Something truthy.
Like or Dislike:
1
Btw, before we attack Roman Catholicism, at least today, one should read some of the books by Benedict/Ratzinger! He is without a doubt a Pope who is a theologian, and also something of an Augustinian. We must remind ourselves that this is not the 16th century! And note I did one of my doctorates on Luther. Also let me recommend the book: Covenant and Communion, The Biblical Theology of Pope Benedict XVI, by Scott Hahn. Even Michael Horton wrote a positive blurb on the book!
Like or Dislike:
0
Mormon here, but loved the post. Paul might have put it most bluntly in 2 Tim 3:7
Like or Dislike:
0
Mike: And too 2 Tim. 3:8 expresses this essence…”of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith, also oppose the truth.”
Like or Dislike:
2
Oh, whatever would we do if we had nothing but the Bible. I’d rather my errors be my own than some I’d adopted from someone else.
More Comments:
1 2 3 Next »